Help required with Train Station Car Park Claim Form Defence Letter pls - Moorside

Hotnessone

Dear family, I have received a County Court claim form from Moorside Legal regarding an alleged unpaid parking charge totalling £266.18. The incident occurred at a local train station car park, where I park almost daily. I believe I may have genuinely forgotten to pay for parking on the day in question. The claim form is dated 28th March 2025, and I submitted my MCOL Acknowledgement of Service on 2nd April.

I am now at the stage of drafting my defence, but I’m struggling with how best to phrase Paragraph 6 (I followed the Moorside Legal Claim template here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81199155/#Comment_81199155). I’ve spent the whole day reviewing the Newbies thread, exploring related cases, and searching various forums and examples, but I’m still unsure how to word this part appropriately for my specific situation.

I would really appreciate any guidance or example wording for Paragraph 6 that suits a scenario like mine. If there are any relevant cases or typical defences involving forgetfulness or daily commuter routines, I’d be grateful to be pointed in the right direction.

Hotnessone

Here's my copy of my PCN.

ChirpyChicken

Which station 

Hotnessone

Upminster, Essex

Coupon-mad

 If there are any relevant cases or typical defences involving forgetfulness or daily commuter routines, I’d be grateful to be pointed in the right direction.

Errrr ... but that's the opposite of what your defence should include. Moorside haven't pleaded any breach so you should just adapt the usual shahib_02 para 3 (from the normal template defence) as your para 6.

You don't respond to what isn't pleaded.

Hotnessone

Thanks for your response @Coupon-mad. This is exactly the reason for my requesting some assistance as a newbie. I just don't want to say anything to hamper my chances of beating these folks!  

I am reading your respond to mean my current defence draft (see below) needs some more work, correct?


Here's my draft:

1.  The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

 

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2. The Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there are two persuasive Appeal judgments - by HHJ Murch at Luton and HHJ Evans at Manchester - to support striking out the claim in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims. The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authorities:

3. Two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the Chan case, HHJ Murch held: 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 

4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held that typical private parking case POC (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'. Transcripts for both cases are linked below to assist the Court to deal with this failure promptly and the two authorities will also be exhibited later, if the claim is not struck out at allocation stage: 

Proving the link here.

The facts known to the Defendant:

5. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

6. The Defendant is a regular commuter who parks most weekdays at the train station car park in question. To the best of their knowledge, parking was usually paid for, but on the date in question it appears there may have been an unintentional oversight. The Defendant does not recall receiving any prior correspondence or Notice to Keeper compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Furthermore, the amount claimed appears excessive and inflated beyond the value of any unpaid parking tariff, suggesting an abuse of process.

And the continues as in the template....

ChirpyChicken

Is the car park part of the station or separate 

Half_way

With this being a railway ticket, and the possibility of by-laws being ion play/not relevant land, do not under any circumstance attempt to guess the name of who could have been driving the vehicle.

 Never use words like I, He, She, mother, father uncle aunt son, or anything else that cold lead to  a possible driver identity

Coupon-mad

Remove all this:

"and driver.

6. The Defendant is a regular commuter who parks most weekdays at the train station car park in question. To the best of their knowledge, parking was usually paid for, but on the date in question it appears there may have been an unintentional oversight. The Defendant does not recall receiving any prior correspondence or Notice to Keeper compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Furthermore, the amount claimed appears excessive and inflated beyond the value of any unpaid parking tariff, suggesting an abuse of process."

Replace it with the usual shahib para 3 (except that will be para 6 in your case).